Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

When I have listened to JP this attitude seems to be the vein in which he debates such ideas. However, the argument made against this is, who are we to judge who is delusional, nutbars etc... and what is ridiculous or petty. 

If a boss, commanding officer or president - is a delusional nutbar [it happens] who makes a ridiculous petty demand that he be addressed as "sir", most people just do it, whatever they privately think of him. Why is it okay to indulge the whim of a superior, but not a peer or subordinate? It's quite commonly accepted to humour a child. What is so unthinkable about humouring an adult with a harmless delusion? 

Dr. Peterson's 'argument' [sounds like, from what I've heard of it] : I won't speak respectfully to people I despise [for reasons he delineates, but does not demonstrate as valid]  and the law that tries me to force me to [It doesn't.] is wrong [It isn't.] His 'debate' with minority and only recently enfranchised people is: I refuse to engage with your issues, because I don't recognize your collective identity. IOW: I get to assign identity to others and reject their right to identify themselves.

If his attitude, widely accepted, will result in a 'better' society - by some definition other than the one with which I'm familiar, which FAIK may be described Dr. Peterson's literary opus - nobody here has made the case for it. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

That depends strongly on your definition of 'better'.

Without any counterarguments, I see that the race to the top of the 'holier than thou' heap has intensified;

Of course, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting we ought to go without counterargument. Sadly thus far, most "counterarguments" are limited to "stop whining" and "you're just being too sensitive." Those aren't counterarguments. They're disrespectful dismissals of valid reasonable requests.

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

appeasing nutbars who want to be 'fashionable' and refer to themselves as 'thou' ( the point Koti was trying to make ), or simply delusional people with mental health issues ( we seem to have growing numbers ) is NOT.

Right... and we should watch out for all 7 of those people ( )who have actual mental health issues while ALSO respecting the other 99.9% who simply asking for acceptance (not even acceptance, just an end to the dismissal, disparagement, and disrespect) for identifying as their authentic selves.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Because, in the US and Canada, these protest actions did not succeed without conflict and the participants did not all come through it unharmed. In fact, the process is still ongoing; people are still protesting and demanding fair treatment, and they're still getting hurt, even killed. If they so much as want the basic human respect of having their declared identity recognized in school or workplace, they're derided and excoriated by highly paid, highly visible media celebrities. If none of that happens in Australia, you are a very enlightened nation and I salute you.  

We are enlightened enough but certainly could be better, and as I have shown with links to the recent Melbourne and Sydney protest marches, we have plenty of "hanger's on" to the hard legitimate core and gripe of a section of society, albeit mostly misinformed,  pushing extreme right crap such as their personal freedom to reject vaccinations and still maintain their employment. The worst part of Australain society, is the "copy cat" actions some take from North America in particular, that some of the loonies use to push their agendas...

Generally though, those with "declared identities" go about their lives without too much of a problem or the need to climb on a podium shouting out their identities. You are what you are *shrug* and that's your business, until it should conflict with the general rights of general society. Yes, I have met known gay people of both genders and probably some unknown ones also. And yes, my attitide and societies attitude towards them, have  thankfully certainly changed since the time I was a tin lid. True story time: When I was in my twenties, the pub we drank at had a well known gay barman...he was to my knowledge anyway never castigated for it, or called anything untoward. After closing time we would often go to one of our gang's home and continue drinking and carrying on. At one of these parties, this gay barman ( for what ever reason) made a move on me. I objected and forcefully pushed his hand away. In my mind that was it...end of story: The following weekend when I went to that pub, he profusely apologised to me, and then proceeded to give me free beer for most of the day/night 😁 Not sure if the Publican knew though.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Anyway, I wasn't casting aspersions on your character; mere defending the old farts you said would have to die off before civil discourse can become the norm. That was the only statement with which I disagreed, and it's been more than adequately discussed by now.   

It was essentially a term I and my mates often use and an example of being able to laugh at one's self. I didn't see it as an aspersion on my character, and was speaking on what I and many see as the extremes of so called "civil discourse" eg: my comment on the lyrics of certain songs, both old and new. A few years ago a pommie bloke wrote and sang a song, that was banned for a period of time due to its offending nature to indigenous Australians. Yet I knew many idigenous Aussies, who saw it as a fun tune, and had it on the juke box at a well known indigenous drinking hole/pub. While it certainly offended the greater majority, it didn't offend all of them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ac8jZakNXk This though, imo is at the extreme end of what could be seen as politically incorrect, other examples are wishy washy at best.

 

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If a boss, commanding officer or president - is a delusional nutbar [it happens] who makes a ridiculous petty demand that he be addressed as "sir", most people just do it, whatever they privately think of him.

An observation: Through movies, world news etc, it does appear to me that Australians are far less "formal" then Americans. It is hardly ever heard of addressing our PM as Sir, mostly he would be addressed by his nickname ScoMo [for Scott Morrison] or as Scott. I doubt any Australain PM would demand to be addressed as Sir!

[MigL]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Right... and we should watch out for all 7 of those people ( )who have actual mental health issues

Well, at least you upped the number ( by one ) from the number of transgendered athletes competing in professional sports 😄 .

[naitche]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

 

An observation: Through movies, world news etc, it does appear to me that Australians are far less "formal" then Americans. It is hardly ever heard of addressing our PM as Sir, mostly he would be addressed by his nickname ScoMo [for Scott Morrison] or as Scott. I doubt any Australain PM would demand to be addressed as Sir!

As a child migrant to Australia I was reprimanded by my class mates for addressing my teacher as 'Sir'. I explained it was the norm where I came from. I was told you never address a person with a title of respect that is un earned or excessive to their relative position.

As to diversity, I found Australians in general very accepting, but part of that expression included drawing attention to your difference, maybe with a descriptive nick name(though not in the case of more intimate difference) 

eg. He may be a block head but hes ours.

I believe the argument here and and in general is not weather we improve conditions for minorities or not,

But if that is best achieved by providing

Direction ie. be mindful that the world offers us all a unique perspective and try to understand and accept those as equal products of our  human environment.

Provide a 'better' perspective where one is imposing on others. A biological  definition of response ability.

Or imposing a perspective or statehood that reduces environment to that state, so avoids that responsibility.

Objective Vs subjective values. Objective is subtractive, of environment.

[Arete]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Trying to make life better for the oppressed and disadvantaged is a valid and noble cause; appeasing nutbars who want to be 'fashionable' and refer to themselves as 'thou' ( the point Koti was trying to make ), or simply delusional people with mental health issues ( we seem to have growing numbers ) is NOT.

So, imagine I'm a professor teaching a class. I refer to students by their preferred first names. Plenty of people go by things different from what's on their birth certificates. Some are kind of odd, but generally I do my best to pronounce people's names the way they ask, and not mix up people's names. I make the odd mistake, but generally that's how it goes. Except for the African American kid. I call him "boy" because that's what we call black folks where I'm from. He repeatedly tells me his name is Paul, but I insist on calling him "boy" whilst using everyone else in the classes preferred name. 
Paul complains to the University office for the Prevention of Discrimination and Harrassment, who determine that I have violated both institutional policy and federal employment laws by discriminating based on race. I have to face a disciplinary hearing and might get fired. 

Now replace "name" with "pronoun" and "African American" with "transgender". Explain why it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender identity. 

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, Arete said:

So, imagine I'm a professor teaching a class. I refer to students by their preferred first names. Plenty of people go by things different from what's on their birth certificates. Some are kind of odd, but generally I do my best to pronounce people's names the way they ask, and not mix up people's names. I make the odd mistake, but generally that's how it goes. Except for the African American kid. I call him "boy" because that's what we call black folks where I'm from. He repeatedly tells me his name is Paul, but I insist on calling him "boy" whilst using everyone else in the classes preferred name. 
Paul complains to the University office for the Prevention of Discrimination and Harrassment, who determine that I have violated both institutional policy and federal employment laws by discriminating based on race. I have to face a disciplinary hearing and might get fired. 

Now replace "name" with "pronoun" and "African American" with "transgender". Explain why it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender identity. 

There is no difference, however your example is not reflective of the point being made. The professor in your example has clear intent. Intent on being subtly racist, purposefully demeaning, until Paul complains (absolutely rightly so!) it may not appear that obvious, which was also the intent. 

I was focusing more on things that have or originally had, no intent towards harassment, racism or discrimination, but are made to appear to be by the extreme activists. 

For example - I over heard just the other day in a conversation that someone had made a comment that "black berries" should be re-named as the current term is racist. Should we seriously consider this?    

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is no difference, however your example is not reflective of the point being made. The professor in your example has clear intent. Intent on being subtly racist, purposefully demeaning, until Paul complains (absolutely rightly so!) it may not appear that obvious, which was also the intent. 

I was focusing more on things that have or originally had, no intent towards harassment, racism or discrimination, but are made to appear to be by the extreme activists. 

For example - I over heard just the other day in a conversation that someone had made a comment that "black berries" should be re-named as the current term is racist. Should we seriously consider this?    

You may not intend to be hurtful and cite outliers as an excuse, but it's not a reason.

Should we seriously consider this?

If it's a reason to be offended, then yes; are you in a position to determine that?

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is no difference, however your example is not reflective of the point being made. The professor in your example has clear intent.

So does the professor on the podium. Jordan Peterson has been forcefully and very publicly making the point that he shouldn't be required to respect the stated identity of anyone he considers unworthy.

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Intent on being subtly racist, purposefully demeaning, until Paul complains (absolutely rightly so!) it may not appear that obvious, which was also the intent. 

 When someone has noticeably different different pigmentation, their racial identity is not questioned - though their 'hypersensitivity' is often cited as the reason for complaint, rather than the disrespectful speech itself. But if the intentional discrimination is on the basis of gender identity, which is not outwardly visible, their claim to it can be denied. If the student complains, it's the student who is called delusional, a nutbar, and worse.

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I was focusing more on things that have or originally had, no intent towards harassment, racism or discrimination, but are made to appear to be by the extreme activists. 

Who are these extreme activists? What, specifically, have they done and to whom?

Edited October 21, 2021 by Peterkin

[Arete]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is no difference, however your example is not reflective of the point being made.   

I disagree - that's the EXACT point of Peterson's argument. He doesn't believe in transgenderism (despite the extensive scientific basis of it), and is claiming that being asked to use a student's preferred pronouns is a violation of his free speech rights. His subtle, intentional discrimination is that he would be happy to use the preferred pronouns of cis-gender appearing students, but not those whose physical appearance does not conform to his assumptions of gender presentation, because of his personal (and IMO fundamentally wrong) opinion that their identity is not valid. 

We're going in circles, but he's arguing that it is his right to discriminate against people who do not conform to gender norms. I'm pointing out that it's not for other protected classes, and asking why transgender people shouldn't be afforded the same protections as religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

[TheVat]

6 minutes ago, Arete said:

We're going in circles, but he's arguing that it is his right to discriminate against people who do not conform to gender norms. I'm pointing out that it's not for other protected classes, and asking why transgender people shouldn't be afforded the same protections as religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

Re,  the first four words of your paragraph, glad someone noticed.   Amazed that the blather of JP has catalyzed so much discussion here.   Imagine someone predicating their behavior towards black people with JP's logic.   Pfft, "black" isn't a real thing,  is it?   We should listen to anthropologists rather than your lived experience! 

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, Arete said:

I'm pointing out that it's not for other protected classes, and asking why transgender people shouldn't be afforded the same protections as religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

Each one of those categories was a separate and hard-fought issue. First, religion was legally protected (though it might be hard to convince some north American Jews and Muslims that it's been altogether successful, but at least they're admitted into university). Then racial discrimination became the contested issue, then sex, then age (though each of those recently enfranchised groups are still finding more snakes than ladders). Sexual orientation was a taboo subject and criminal offense until 50 years ago, but the jeers, rejections and beatings continued on.    This may be the last frontier of universal acceptance - but it hasn't been won yet!

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

"black" isn't a real thing,  is it?   We should listen to anthropologists rather than your lived experience! 

Peterson comes within an inch of saying that in one of his 'debates'.

[MigL]

15 hours ago, Arete said:

Now replace "name" with "pronoun" and "African American" with "transgender". Explain why it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender identity. 

Your story, while very cute, is not similar at all.
Tell me exactly what 'ze' means?
Is it a country of origin ? France maybe ?

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So does the professor on the podium. Jordan Peterson has been forcefully and very publicly making the point that he shouldn't be required to respect the stated identity of anyone he considers unworthy.

It's easy to make claims.
Proving them wrong is just as easy at 2:57 0f the following video ...

Sorry about the idiotic title; it was the first one that came up in my search.

3 hours ago, Arete said:

We're going in circles, but he's arguing that it is his right to discriminate against people who do not conform to gender norms. I'm pointing out that it's not for other protected classes, and asking why transgender people shouldn't be afforded the same protections as religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

It is everyone's right to have their OWN world view, and not have someone else's forced on them.
Doing it voluntarily is a courtesy.

Edited October 21, 2021 by MigL

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is everyone's right to have their OWN world view, and not have someone else's forced on them.
Doing it voluntarily is a courtesy.

It is also everyone's right to criticize views as part of their freedom of expression. Not doing it is also a courtesy.

The question for each individual is really who we want to accommodate. Folks based on their gender identity, because that is who they are, or folks that decide to be against accommodations.

In the past, the majority decision was usually that minorities have to accommodate majority opinions. E.g. if folks decide that being gay in unnatural, well you just have to deal with it. Now, we do have a societal shift in trying to be accommodate more (even if it is sometimes only in a performative way) but it is also supported by science which some (but certainly not all) give it more weight than just opinions.

So at least some of the demands have shifted from affected minorities to the majority and this is where much of the pushback comes from. In the past one does not have to accommodate much as part of majority. Most decision by the majority group was considered the norm and deviations suffered pushback. While it seems to be a reversal, it is important to note that it really only affects a rather limited area (i.e. the area where discrimination can be demonstrated).

I will also invite folks who seem to treat gender identity as an opinion or fake to investigate their own sense gender. I assume it is the same for almost everyone else, but I do not recall ever to make a conscious decision regarding how I feel about my gender or sexual orientation. I certainly never had to  karyotype myself or double-check my reproductive organs. As such I find it easy to understand how others might feel about their gender but having a mismatched body. We are only starting to understand how biology causes a certain gender identity, but dismissing it outright is certainly not something that follows our current understanding.

 

[MigL]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is also everyone's right to criticize views as part of their freedom of expression. Not doing it is also a courtesy.

Exactly.

Not sure what the rest of your post was addressing, as I've never stated views that are contrary.
We could ALL be more courteous ( I'm Canadian ); but being forced is a totally different matter. 

Then there is the problem of who is deserving of courtesy, andd who is an attention grabbing shit-disturber,

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

but I do not recall ever to make a conscious decision regarding how I feel about my gender or sexual orientation.

Then please explain how someone would come to the decision that they require everyone else to refer to them as 'Ze'.

[CharonY]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then please explain how someone would come to the decision that they require everyone else to refer to them as 'Ze'.

I can't as a) I have not seen it happening and so far it looks like a suggestion. If it transforms into the real world I may have more thoughts about it.

 

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

but being forced is a totally different matter. 

Who forces though in your mind? Society? And if the balance is forcing minorities to conform or forcing part of the majority to conform, where should the balance be? Because clearly social pressures are happening whether you like or not, because actions (and in case of certain minorities the mere existence) has consequences.

[beecee]

19 hours ago, naitche said:

As a child migrant to Australia I was reprimanded by my class mates for addressing my teacher as 'Sir'. I explained it was the norm where I came from. I was told you never address a person with a title of respect that is un earned or excessive to their relative position.

I went to a Catholic school and we did call our Christian Brother's teachers Sir...my Son later went to a Marist Brothers school and they addressed their teachers as Bro. Not sure of the terms of address in state run schools but I believe it is simply Mr, Miss, or Mrs.

19 hours ago, naitche said:

As to diversity, I found Australians in general very accepting, but part of that expression included drawing attention to your difference, maybe with a descriptive nick name(though not in the case of more intimate difference) 

eg. He may be a block head but hes ours.

As I have said many times, the important part is intent. As an Aussie now, you would know that we can call each other "you old bastard" or similar without any offence or undesirable intent. We can and do laugh at each other. On the other hand, yes times do change, and what we often called migrants to our country in the fifties and sixties is now unacceptable...terms such as wogs and dagos etc, yet those same wogs and dagos, that are now naturalised Australians have turned those once insulting names into terms of endearment, as is evident in the TV shows by Mary Coustas and shows such as "Wogs out of  work"    https://maryandeffie.com/marycoustas/ and who could forget her book entitled "Effie’s Guide to Being Up Yourself" or the TV show entitled "The Wog Boy" with Nick Giannopoulos. I believe much of what those  two Greek Australians did, sums up the Aussie's general attitude. That's not to say of course that it was easy for them in the fifties and sixties with the intended bullying with the use of those terms. Which again gets back to intent.

 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You may not intend to be hurtful and cite outliers as an excuse, but it's not a reason.

Should we seriously consider this?

If it's a reason to be offended, then yes; are you in a position to determine that?

As I have expressed, I dislike in general JP and if anyone objected to my terms of address in any way, shape or form, body language or word of mouth, I would cease, in some cases apologise, and in others, avoid contact with that person altogether.

Edited October 21, 2021 by beecee

[Arete]

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Your story, while very cute, is not similar at all.
Tell me exactly what 'ze' means?
Is it a country of origin ? France maybe ?

It's a gender neutral pronoun. Like "he" is a male pronoun and "she" is a female pronoun. It's really not harder than that, and I'm not sure how it supposedly invalidates the analogy. Plenty of names for people have no meaning. 

As to how a person arrived at the preference of using a gender neutral pronoun - I can imagine a number of conditions - Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), Androgen insensitivity syndrome(AIS), Gonadal Dysgenesis, 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency, etc might result in someone deciding to identify as neither male nor female.

But ultimately does it matter? Say I have a student whose name on the roll says "Sarah" and they tell me they prefer "Kasey". Do I need to know why in order to comply with the request?  

Again we are going in circles, but we're talking about discrimination law. Peterson and you can espouse all you like that pronouns are stupid, transgerderism is a mental disease, sex is binary, etc, etc. You just can't discriminate against someone because of their gender identity - which means you can't single them out and treat them differently.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Arete

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Tell me exactly what 'ze' means?
Is it a country of origin ? France maybe ?

What difference does it make whether the word is French, English or Urdu. It is no more or less meaningful, no more or less difficult to say than he or she. It is certainly easier to remember and pronounce that most proper names.

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

It's easy to make claims.
Proving them wrong is just as easy at 2:57 0f the following video ...

I wonder why you included this. Yes, he makes easy claims. No, he does not prove them. Nothing new there. 

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Arete said:

But ultimately does it matter? Say I have a student whose name on the roll says "Sarah" and they tell me they prefer "Kasey". Do I need to know why in order to comply with the request?  

Try that with a cop, or a judge, when your license says Arete, but you insist on being called Bubba.
Let me know how you make out.
It could also be that "Ze' is just a way to grab attention, make yourself stand out, cause a disturbance, etc.
IOW, spuriously made up.

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What difference does it make whether the word is French, English or Urdu. It is no more or less meaningful, no more or less difficult to say than he or she.

Then why would I need to acknowledge and validate his/her made up pronoun ?
Other than as a courtesy ?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I wonder why you included this. Yes, he makes easy claims. No, he does not prove them. Nothing new there. 

If you would take the time to actually watch the video @ 2:57, so that you could speak from an informed position, you would hear S Paikin ask J Peterson how he would refer to the trans-woman taking part in the discussion.
To which he calmly replies 'she'.
Which seems to contradict your claim that he will not address trans people according to their own mentally perceived gender.

[Peterkin]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

To which he calmly replies 'she'.

He said that's what he would do. And has he actually done it in real life? If this was addressed to the  person on the panel who looked very feminine, it simply fits his his usual form: What I perceive trumps what you feel. i don't now who the other panelists were and couldn't understand much of what they said.

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

Which seems to contradict your claim that he will not address trans people according to their own mentally perceived gender.

This is not what I "claimed". What I observed was:

Quote

 Jordan Peterson has been forcefully and very publicly making the point that he shouldn't be required to respect the stated identity of anyone he considers unworthy.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

To which he calmly replies 'she'.
Which seems to contradict your claim that he will not address trans people according to their own mentally perceived gender.

And that in turn just demonstrates that his opposition to C-16 was just to gain attention. After all the bill itself (as well as the existing provisions on the provincial level) failed to manifest in actual compelled speech by law.

I.e. he is just making a bit thing out of nothing and it seems to have seen more traction than proponents of alternative pronouns. I.e. I have seen more folks claiming that there is a law regarding pronoun use vs folks demanding the use of "ze".

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

He said that's what he would do. And has he actually done it in real life? If this was addressed to the  person on the panel who looked very feminine, it simply fits his his usual form: What I perceive trumps what you feel. i don't now who the other panelists were and couldn't understand much of what they said.

This is not what I "claimed". What I observed was:

 

Why would you question that? It seems you are suggesting he hasn't. 

[Peterkin]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why would you question that? It seems you are suggesting he hasn't. 

I don't know what-all else he has said, or what he's called people, except for what I heard in the stage appearances that I watched. 

I question this:

Quote

If you would take the time to actually watch the video @ 2:57, so that you could speak from an informed position, you would hear S Paikin ask J Peterson how he would refer to the trans-woman taking part in the discussion.
To which he calmly replies 'she'.
Which seems to contradict your claim that he will not address trans people according to their own mentally perceived gender.

because that one tiny segment of one video clip was offered as proof that my understanding of Peterson's position is wrong. My impression from the other videos is that he's prepared to do everything within his power to resist ever having to use what he considers to be the pronoun of preference for a person who identifies differently from the way he identifies them by sight. His saying that he would address someone - which is why I asked whether it was the feminine-looking person on the panel - as 'she' does not invalidate that impression.

It also, incidentally, contradicts this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9TwrXRUa_I

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Peterkin